Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pike Township homeowners win variance for 6-foot decorative fence in front yard
Summary
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 granted a variance allowing a 6-foot decorative wrought-iron fence with brick columns at 8654 West 80 Sixth Street despite staff recommendation to deny, subject to a recorded commitment on aesthetics and opacity.
Gary James, the petitioner and property owner at 8654 West 80 Sixth Street, asked the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 on behalf of himself and his wife for approval to construct a 6-foot-tall decorative wrought-iron fence with brick columns and planter boxes in the front yard. The consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance limits front-yard fence height to 3.5 feet.
The board heard hours of testimony and review of the staff report, which recommended denial. Staff said the proposed fence is decorative, does not present a practical difficulty that would justify exceeding the ordinance height, and that a reduced-height fence or landscaping could achieve the petitioner’s stated goals. "The fence is purely decorative," a staff presenter told the board, noting the proposal would not materially stop a vehicle and that a 3.5-foot fence or trees could maintain visibility and safety.
Petitioner Gary James argued the fence is part of a $75,000 landscaping and architectural plan meant to preserve the property’s curb appeal and to match the style of nearby high-end homes. He told the board the property is large, with 300 feet of frontage and a tax-assessed value he cited as $1,700,000, and that the Pike Township Residents Association and a neighbor across the street supported the request. "We are proposing to spend $75,000 on our curb appeal, and it's guaranteed to add elegance and beauty to the entire area," James said.
Board member David Duncan proposed a recorded commitment from the petitioner limiting the approved fence to the aesthetic and opacity substantially similar to the submitted plans so that the approval could not be used to later erect a solid or opaque barrier. The petitioner agreed to that commitment on the record.
The board voted unanimously to grant the variance for case 2024-DV-1-046, approving the 6-foot decorative fence with the condition the fence be wrought iron with an aesthetic and degree of opacity substantially similar to the submitted plans and that the commitment be recorded.
Why it matters: The decision allows a front-yard feature that otherwise exceeds the ordinance height and sets a record of how aesthetic commitments can be used to resolve staff concerns about precedent and future changes in appearance. It also highlights tension between neighborhood preservation arguments and the ordinance’s safety/visibility standards.
Votes and formal action: The variance (case 2024-DV-1-046) was granted by a 5-0 vote. The board recorded the petitioner’s commitment on aesthetics and opacity as part of the approval. The staff recommendation of denial remains in the record.
